RE: *istD hot pixels at 3200 ISO
On 16/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > >I'm gonna do the 'Cotty Pixel Test' tonight hopefully. > >Should I be testing with noise reduction turned off or on? > >Rob Those Canons are so good that they don't need no steenking noise reduction pal! ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: *istD hot pixels at 3200 ISO
On 16 Dec 2003 at 10:38, Rob Brigham wrote: > I'm gonna do the 'Cotty Pixel Test' tonight hopefully. > > Should I be testing with noise reduction turned off or on? Rob, Let's do this semi-scientifically (not difficult so don't worry) so we can make direct comparisons. If you have access to a Windows PC then you can run the little application "Dead Pixel Test" which is available for DL at http://www.starzen.com/imaging/deadpixeltest.htm which will provide a text report which can be saved for analysis. If we all test our cameras using ISO200 at 1/4000, 1/4 and 15 seconds with NR off and saved as TIFF we can directly compare results. Any statisticians amongst us up to the task? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: *istD hot pixels at 3200 ISO
I'm gonna do the 'Cotty Pixel Test' tonight hopefully. Should I be testing with noise reduction turned off or on? Rob > -Original Message- > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 15 December 2003 14:31 > To: pentax list > Subject: Re: *istD hot pixels at 3200 ISO > > > On 14/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >> I checked out a *istD on Saturday. I took a photo with the > lenscap on > >> and a fast shutterspeed, and it had 3 hot pixels at ISO > 3200, none at > >> 200. Another *istD had 2 or 3 hot pixels at ISO 1600. > >> > >> Am I just unlucky, or do I have naïve expectations about digital > >> cameras, or am I a walking source of electromagnetic interference? > >> > >> Do any of the *istD owners on this list have a flawless CCD? > >> > > > >Are you kidding? Thats great performance. > >I doubt very much if it is even possible to get a flawless sensor > > > > Okay, just did a range of tests on my D60, out of curiosity. > > With body cap in place, I exposed for: > > 1/30 sec at 100 ISO - can't see any stuck pixels, nice and > black, even at maximum magnification. > > 1/30 sec at 800 ISO - 1 stuck pixel > > 10 seconds at ISO 100 - 2 stuck pixels > > 10 seconds at (max) ISO 1000 - 12 stuck pixels. > > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk > > >
Re: *istD hot pixels at 3200 ISO
> > Cotty said that > > Okay, just did a range of tests on my D60, out of curiosity. > > With body cap in place, I exposed for: > > 1/30 sec at 100 ISO - can't see any stuck pixels, nice and black, even at > maximum magnification. > > 1/30 sec at 800 ISO - 1 stuck pixel > > 10 seconds at ISO 100 - 2 stuck pixels > > 10 seconds at (max) ISO 1000 - 12 stuck pixels. I'll try my D1 tonight.Now i'm curious. Dave
Re: *istD hot pixels at 3200 ISO
On 14/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >> I checked out a *istD on Saturday. I took a photo with the lenscap on and >> a fast shutterspeed, and it had 3 hot pixels at ISO 3200, none at 200. >> Another *istD had 2 or 3 hot pixels at ISO 1600. >> >> Am I just unlucky, or do I have naïve expectations about digital cameras, >> or am I a walking source of electromagnetic interference? >> >> Do any of the *istD owners on this list have a flawless CCD? >> > >Are you kidding? Thats great performance. >I doubt very much if it is even possible to get a flawless sensor Okay, just did a range of tests on my D60, out of curiosity. With body cap in place, I exposed for: 1/30 sec at 100 ISO - can't see any stuck pixels, nice and black, even at maximum magnification. 1/30 sec at 800 ISO - 1 stuck pixel 10 seconds at ISO 100 - 2 stuck pixels 10 seconds at (max) ISO 1000 - 12 stuck pixels. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: *istD hot pixels at 3200 ISO
On 15 Dec 2003 at 1:31, William Robb wrote: > If it bugs you, get another one. Hot pixels are the luck of the draw. > OTOH, at 3200, you are using the sensor out of range, so don't expect it to be > perfect. In reality any ISO other than 200 is a compromise. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: *istD hot pixels at 3200 ISO
- Original Message - From: "Pieter Nagel" Subject: Re: *istD hot pixels at 3200 ISO > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 05:25:33PM -0600, William Robb wrote: > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Pieter Nagel" > > Subject: *istD hot pixels at 3200 ISO > > > > > > > I checked out a *istD on Saturday. I took a photo with the lenscap on and > > > a fast shutterspeed, and it had 3 hot pixels at ISO 3200, none at 200. > > > Another *istD had 2 or 3 hot pixels at ISO 1600. > > > Are you kidding? Thats great performance. > > I doubt very much if it is even possible to get a flawless sensor. > > Even at exposures as short as 1/125s? I'm aware that bad pixels are common > at long exposures, but short ones? If it bugs you, get another one. Hot pixels are the luck of the draw. OTOH, at 3200, you are using the sensor out of range, so don't expect it to be perfect. I wouldn't consider what you are experiencing to be a problem myself, but it's up to you what you think is good or bad. FWIW, mine comes up with lots of hot pixels at that speed. What it tells me is that I shouldn't expect perfection when I am using my camera outside of it's design specification. William Robb
*istD hot pixels at 3200 ISO
I checked out a *istD on Saturday. I took a photo with the lenscap on and a fast shutterspeed, and it had 3 hot pixels at ISO 3200, none at 200. Another *istD had 2 or 3 hot pixels at ISO 1600. Am I just unlucky, or do I have naïve expectations about digital cameras, or am I a walking source of electromagnetic interference? Do any of the *istD owners on this list have a flawless CCD? -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
